Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Red herring or red flag?

Expand Messages
  • David Mealand
    Ron s web page does list some of the problems with some of the theories. There are problems esp over minor agreements on the Q view. There are also problems
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 29, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron's web page does list some of the problems with
      some of the theories.

      There are problems esp over minor agreements on the Q view.
      There are also problems over why Luke should have done what he did
      on the view that Luke used Matthew. To propose the latter
      view AND some kind of sayings source retains the second set
      of problems and adds the problem of multiplying hypotheses
      by positing a further entity.

      If I changed my view that the difficulties for Q are less
      weighty than the difficulties in holding that Luke used
      Matthew, then I think I would go for the latter "straight".

      So my first question is why go the trouble of proposing
      a further source if one thinks that Luke used Matthew?

      My second question is this:
      Is it really the case that where there are cogent
      arguments for some sort of sayings source these
      do not also reveal some of the
      difficulties for the view that Luke used Matthew?

      David M.



      ---------
      David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


      --
      The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
      Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
    • Ron Price
      ... David, You don t spell out the latter problems. If you refer to Luke s treatment of Matthew s birth and resurrection narratives, then my explanation would
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 30, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        David Mealand wrote:

        > There are problems esp over minor agreements on the Q view.
        > There are also problems over why Luke should have done what he did
        > on the view that Luke used Matthew.

        David,

        You don't spell out the latter problems. If you refer to Luke's treatment of
        Matthew's birth and resurrection narratives, then my explanation would be
        similar to that provided by advocates of the Farrer Theory.

        If you refer to Luke's treatment of the Sermon on the Mount, then my
        explanation is different. For on the Three-Source Theory Luke did what any
        good scholar would have done, namely to base his document primarily on the
        earliest sources available. These were Mark's gospel (ca. 70 CE) for his
        narrative, and the logia (ca. 45 CE) for the sayings. Thus his 'destruction'
        of Matthew's sermon was simply a side-effect of good practice.

        Luke's preference for the Markan order over the Matthean order (Kloppenborg)
        was also because Luke had chosen Mark as his primary source for narratives.

        > To propose the latter
        > view AND some kind of sayings source retains the second set
        > of problems and adds the problem of multiplying hypotheses
        > by positing a further entity.

        If this 'further entity' were entirely hypothetical like Q, then you would
        have a valid point here. But the source is historically attested. For the
        most natural understanding of Papias' "logia" or 'oracles' is that it was a
        collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. I am aware that Kloppenborg calls
        Papias' statement "legendary at best" ("Excavating Q", p.80). But I can't
        help thinking that his conclusion was influenced by the fact that it doesn't
        match his deduction of a Q which originated in Greek.

        This last deduction was based mainly on texts which the Three-Source Theory
        can take as cases of Luke copying Matthew directly. Thus for example the
        Temptation story with its quotations from the Septuagint, the only two
        probable cases of genitive absolute (Mt 11:7 par.; Mt 9:33 par.), and the
        majority of passages with a high degree of verbal agreement, all occur in
        texts which I assign to Luke's direct dependence on Matthew. The removal of
        such texts as candidates for the sayings source will almost certainly
        undermine any case against the translation hypothesis. The remainder of the
        Double Tradition texts will be seen to be aphorisms, many of which exhibit
        Semitic parallelism, and a few of which exhibit either paronomasia, or signs
        of mistranslation in the Greek of Matthew and/or Luke. There is thus no bar
        to their Aramaic origin, and no reason to disparage Papias' statement.

        > If I changed my view that the difficulties for Q are less
        > weighty than the difficulties in holding that Luke used
        > Matthew, then I think I would go for the latter "straight".
        >
        > So my first question is why go the trouble of proposing
        > a further source if one thinks that Luke used Matthew?

        On the page cited below under "Evidence that Luke also used a sayings
        source" I've given a set of reasons for thinking there was a sayings source,
        and longer set indicating Luke's use of it. Even if the odd reason is
        rejected, the cumulative set of reasons is surely weighty.

        > My second question is this:
        > Is it really the case that where there are cogent
        > arguments for some sort of sayings source these
        > do not also reveal some of the
        > difficulties for the view that Luke used Matthew?

        Not as far as I know. On the contrary, positing that the Double Tradition
        was dual-sourced not only leads to the solution of the main problems
        associated with both the 2ST and the FT, but by removing the barriers to an
        Aramaic source it opens up again a perspective which has been gradually
        stifled during the last 50 years or so, and brings to light a crucial
        historical link between the Aramaic-speaking Jesus community in Jerusalem
        and the authors of the Greek-language synoptic gospels.

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK

        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_LkMt.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.